Comments on: Of Mice and Men

By: John

John — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:10:31 +0000

Ken wrote: “I concede the discussion to you.” So you are abandoning creationism because it utterly fails to explain the conservation of genetic material across kingdoms and phyla, or just cutting your losses? “I bow to your superior knowledge and training in your area of expertise.” Thanks, but neither is the issue. The point is that everything I see, as someone who marvels at the complexities of life, is consistent with natural selection and totally inconsistent with the claims of creationists. There’s a reason why you weren’t prepared to discuss this subject—creationists ignore it, because their intent is to persuade, not to enlighten. “Looking back over our exchange, it seems to me that I pressed a bit too hard on occasion.” That’s putting it mildly. As Sigh noted, your claim that I don’t marvel was deeply insulting, especially when you hadn’t even bothered to look in detail at something (the genome) you claim to marvel at. Creationism simply isn’t scientific, as you just demonstrated empirically. You simply abandoned the scientific method when challenged, and accused me of “naturally” violating basic scientific ethics. Here’s another thing to consider: have you ever encountered a designed system that featured partial redundance? I haven’t, and this is a major feature of modern biology. I am confident that this will never be addressed by a creationist. “I appreciate your graciousness to tolerate my excesses.” I didn’t think that I was gracious in any way. “I mean no personal harm to either your honesty or integrity.” But when you wrote, “John, naturally you would be looking for data consistent with your premise,” that was a frontal attack on my professional integrity. Do you even realize that if a scientist does not attempt to falsify his own hypotheses, he is considered incompetent at best? That’s the primary criterion we use in rating grant applications: does the applicant propose a stringent test of a falsifiable hypothesis? That’s why creationists will never be scientists. Checking this out might help to free your mind from false dichotomies: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/lecture.html “I wish you the best of success in your endeavors.” Thanks. I appreciate your concession.

By: Ken Miller

Ken Miller — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:36:10 +0000

Sigh, Thank you for your comments. Perhaps another discussion on another day. Regards, Ken

By: Ken Miller

Ken Miller — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:34:18 +0000

Sigh, Thank you for your comments. Perhaps another discussion on another day. Regards, Ken

By: Ken Miller

Ken Miller — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:27:59 +0000

John, I concede the discussion to you. I bow to your superior knowledge and training in your area of expertise. Looking back over our exchange, it seems to me that I pressed a bit too hard on occasion. I appreciate your graciousness to tolerate my excesses. I mean no personal harm to either your honesty or integrity. I certainly harbor no ill will toward you. I wish you the best of success in your endeavors. Thank you for the spirited discussion. adieu, Ken

By: John

John — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:52:53 +0000

Ken, true to form, wrote: “John, naturally you would be looking for data consistent with your premise.” You just broke that ol’ Commandment again. I wasn’t looking for data consistent with evolution. I was looking to clone a gene, and did so. The table and figure merely show its mathmatical relationship to other members of the myosin-V family. Your challenge is to explain those data using special creation. The dishonesty of your eagerness to falsely attribute positions to me is breathtaking, Ken. “That’s not advancing science. That’s bolstering your position.” Cloning new genes is advancing science. I had a Nature paper for cloning myosin-Va, and I demolished the hypothesis I offered in that paper in another PNAS paper, proving beyond any doubt that I don’t only look for evidence to bolster my position. And earlier this year, I demolished another hypothesis that was proposed in an earlier publication that I coauthored. Your dog won’t hunt, but thanks for showing that you’ll fabricate to bolster your position. “So what are you suggesting, that the existence of information stored in the form of a biochemical language doesn’t require anything more than basic undirected biochemical reactions?” The nature of the genome’s language, even new “words” that I brought up earlier, is entirely consistent with evolution and inconsistent with an intelligent, rational designer—even to the point of using evolution’s predictions (homology) to identify previously unknown “words” whose significance is then demonstrated experimentally. Any of you creationists doing experiments, Ken? You’ve never done an iota of sequence analysis, have you? “I marvel at the mere existence of such a structure in nature. I’m surprised that you don’t,…” I do—far more than you—because I spend my days indulging my marveling. You, OTOH, arrogantly pretend to know it all without studying anything. “… unless you’ve become too familiar and desensitized to what’s before you.” If you marvel at the structure of the genome, why haven’t you bothered to study it, Ken? Why do you dishonestly pretend to know what you are talking about? “You may not agree, but does that call for name calling?” We’re talking about matters of simple fact. I marvel at the complexities of nature, and you simply lied, claiming that I don’t. I asked: “Where does special creation predict that myosin-Vc will end up?” “I realize that I’ve been painting with too broad a brush. I’ve dismissed Evolution out of hand, without differentiating between the micro and the macro.” ROTFL! It’s irrelevant. The question was about macro, but thanks for bearing false witness yet again. “When considering microevolution,…” My question had nothing to do with microevolution. Could you park your arrrogance for even a single question? “…However, I still hold that speciation is not a natural process, but a supernatural one. ” My question had nothing to do with speciation. It exposed you as willing to pontificate (regurgitate is more accurate) for paragraphs (bearing false witness yet again) without the most basic understanding of the question I asked. I’m talking about the evolution of orthologous genes across entire phyla and kingdoms, not speciation. Don’t worry though—you just made an colossal error of several orders of magnitude while dodging a polite request to use your hypothesis to make a simple prediction, a fundamental scientific practice.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:29:48 +0000

I enjoy reading stuff about historical linguistics—i.e., how languages change and, um, “evolve” over time. Historical linguists have developed quite a range of theories that seek to explain the processes involved. But I guess in Ken’s view these theories, being, after all, “just theories,” should be treated on an equal footing with the story of the Tower of Babel, which offers an equally plausible explanation for linguistic change.

By: sigh

sigh — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:54:42 +0000

Oh, dear. Let’s just cut to the chase, shall we? Ken: What I’ve tried to articulate is what I see expressed in scripture. Of course, not everyone holds scripture in the same regard, so you may see just about any position taken in the name of Christianity. Crystal clear. For example, even though the Papists claim to be Christian, they worship idols! So something is obviously wrong there. In fact, no person or group of people, or historical event, or anything human, could be considered representative of Christianity in any way, since we all fall short of the glory. No, if you want to talk about Christianity, you must go straight to the scriptures. Which are easy to understand. Unless your mind is clouded by selfishness. Okay … so how can we tell if a person’s mind is clouded by selfishness? Well, if they refuse to publicly acknowledge God. That’s pretty much the only heuristic we have to work with. After all, why would anybody refuse to make public pronouncements about how fabulous God is, unless they were selfish? (And therefore they won’t be able to understand the scriptures, whose meaning is otherwise perfectly obvious, and therefore …) Ken: Of course, you’ve examined the relevant scriptures to form your own opinion? I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I have. Here’s one of my favorite verses, Matthew chapter 6, verse 5: “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”

By: sigh

sigh — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:30:29 +0000

Ken: I suspect that each of us will end up with different conclusions from that data – by your invoking evolution as the causative agent, and by my invoking the occurance of special creation. One opinion against the other. John: Dead wrong, and spoken like a true pseudoscientist, dedicated to bearing false witness— Ken: You may not agree, but does that call for name calling? Is it really “name calling”? The assertion that scientific method is “just one opinion” not only misrepresents science but accuses scientists, who claim otherwise, of operating in bad faith. This is the fundamental issue. Homology trees are not going to make any sense to a person who does not understand this issue. If you do not agree at least that the data are organized, and were derived, according to conceptual structures that are something other than mere opinion (i.e. the theoretical background of the experiment) then of course when it comes to examining the data you can always make up an alternative opinion right on the spot to counter anything you don’t like. “This is all very well and good, Doctor, but have you considered the possibility that the enzymes have been manipulated by leprechauns? No? Do you mean your experiment does not rule out the possibility? Astonishing! I’m afraid you have very little credibility, Doctor! No, I don’t believe in leprechauns personally but I’m just making the point that—” This won’t accomplish anything. And I hope it’s clear that while the example of leprechauns is of course somewhat fanciful, any “interpretation of the data” that is not based on understanding and agreement ahead of time about what constitutes science, and makes science separate from mere opinion, might as well invoke leprechauns. Ken again: I marvel at the mere existence of such a structure in nature. I’m surprised that you don’t, unless you’ve become too familiar and desensitized to what’s before you. Has anybody here even so much as hinted that they do not marvel, or that they are too familiar and desensitized to care about the wonder of life? Again, you appear to start with the hidden assumption that all scientists are working in bad faith. How is it possible for anyone to engage in conversation with such a position? And how is this rhetorical strategy supposed to be effective witness for the good name of Jesus Christ?

By: Ken Miller

Ken Miller — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:12:22 +0000

“You don’t know that the official Catholic church position is that evolution is true? Wow. Shouldn’t you actually know something about Christianity before you presume to tell us what is and what is not compatible with it? Or is your own narrow conception the only valid form?” Walt, what you are refering to are the social and political positions that the Catholic church officially holds. What I’ve tried to articulate is what I see expressed in scripture. Of course, not everyone holds scripture in the same regard, so you may see just about any position taken in the name of Christianity. For example, in the Catholic church, the spoken word of the Pope trumps scripture. I don’t happen to agree with that, but it happens. Of course, you’ve examined the relevant scriptures to form your own opinion?

By: Ken Miller

Ken Miller — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:35:39 +0000

“But I won’t be doing that, Ken! I’ll be doing science, which is a method you reject. I’ll be examining the data for consistency with natural selection.” John, naturally you would be looking for data consistent with your premise. That’s not advancing science. That’s bolstering your position. “Dead wrong, and spoken like a true pseudoscientist, dedicated to bearing false witness—like your falsehood about genomes providing evidence for creation. They do the polar opposite.” So what are you suggesting, that the existence of information stored in the form of a biochemical language doesn’t require anything more than basic undirected biochemical reactions? I marvel at the mere existence of such a structure in nature. I’m surprised that you don’t, unless you’ve become too familiar and desensitized to what’s before you. “…dedicated to bearing false witness…” You may not agree, but does that call for name calling? “Where does special creation predict that myosin-Vc will end up?” I realize that I’ve been painting with too broad a brush. I’ve dismissed Evolution out of hand, without differentiating between the micro and the macro. I apologize for that, and I’ll soften my approach. When considering microevolution, I can allow for limited changes in the genome due to natural processes, which may be expressed in the morphology. Natural selection as a vehicle,in that case, may be worth considering. However, I still hold that speciation is not a natural process, but a supernatural one. Which of course is opinion, and is on par with the evolutionist opinion of speciation through natural selection. “I already have, but you lack the modesty to acknowledge it.” See above. Seems we have a mutual admiration society going on here. Thanks for the link to your research. I’ll have to study it, as I’m out of my depth in your area of specialization. I’ll be in touch.

By: John

John — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:29:12 +0000

Ken, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/93/20/10826.pdf Check out Figure 1 and Figure 2. “I suspect that each of us will end up with different conclusions from that data…” Yes, but… ” – by your invoking evolution as the causative agent,…” But I won’t be doing that, Ken! I’ll be doing science, which is a method you reject. I’ll be examining the data for consistency with natural selection. “… and me by invoking the occurance of special creation.” Where does special creation predict that myosin-Vc will end up? Natural selection makes a very clear prediction. You can do the experiment yourself. What does special creation predict about the intron/exon structures? “One opinion against the other.” Dead wrong, and spoken like a true pseudoscientist, dedicated to bearing false witness—like your falsehood about genomes providing evidence for creation. They do the polar opposite. We will determine which opinion fits the data and makes accurate predictions. “But it may be worth the discussion.” Absolutely. I predict you’ll bail. “So I thank you in advance for correcting my missteps. :)” I already have, but you lack the modesty to acknowledge it.

By: Ken Miller

Ken Miller — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:58:06 +0000

“In fact, it does. If you disagree, how do you explain the repeated observations of trees derived from sequence homologies beautifully paralleling those drawn from morphological homologies? We could discuss some real data if you have the courage to, as I’ve published such a tree.” John,I’ll be happy to entertain the data that you present. Please send them to me. I suspect that each of us will end up with different conclusions from that data – by your invoking evolution as the causative agent, and by my invoking the occurance of special creation. One opinion against the other. But it may be worth the discussion. But please go easy on me. I’m not a trained biologist and have been separated by some number of years from any formal training in the area. So I thank you in advance for correcting my missteps. :)

By: james

james — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:36:12 +0000

walt pohl – The abortion question is “When is a human embryo a human being?”. For abortion to work in a civilized society it must maintain the idea that a human embryo is not a human being until “born alive”. Abortion runs the possibility of becoming murder if a human embryo is a human being at some indeterminate point prior to this event. The earlier this event occurs in the development process, the greater the possibility. It requires a great amount of faith to believe that the transition from clump of cells to human being occurs in a such a convenient manner as to justify abortion on demand.

By: Ajax Bucky

Ajax Bucky — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:41:50 +0000

Some of us have been saying what Jim Harrison said above for some time now. Though it needs reinforcing that clinging to obvious nonsense in the face of an onslaught of logical rebuttal is probably more than just pathology in action. Unless by pathology you mean something subjective, an organism that threatens your own well-being. The academic culture we all enter before the age of reason, and that many of us remain in past the age of majority, constantly reiterates the dysfunctionality of wrong answers, the inability of irrational thought to succeed, the dead end illogic always leads to. Outside the educational system having the right answer’s just one more competing strategy. The game is survival, not a credential. It’s complicated for those whose survival depends on academic success, obviously, but the cold hard truth is, the truth itself, as an abstract thing, means nothing in a Darwinian sense. Just as that paranoid, should he have a gun in his hand, will dictate the actions of, and may even determine the length of life of, the other more rational sane people within his purview. Over time, given the opportunity, I believe intellectual honesty and a dedication to the “truth” will confer an evolutionary advantage; but in the short run being right or wrong about such non-immediately-essential concepts as the origins of life, or the nature of the early universe, will confer no more advantage than large size or armor plating. Life, and the evolution of life forms, is much more complicated than that. Creationists are fighting for the same thing everybody else is – to live.

By: John

John — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:52:16 +0000

Ain’t that one of them there Commandments? It’s just amazing that people who claim to be Christians have no qualms about disobeying clear commands from the Bible while defending rock-solid positions that can’t be found anywhere in the Bible.